HDMI vs Composite For 360

[Sharmai]

Probably he just had some really bad component cables. Or he was using composite and doesn't know the difference.

But if anyone believes there is a difference between component and HDMI cables I have some gold plated speaker cables that I swear will increase your audio experience by 100% for only $69.99!

[Vinen]

Originally Posted by Quineloe

why don't you come over to my house and fuck my sister while I show you the difference?

[Quineloe]

Originally Posted by Cad

The difference is, Quineloe is trolling as usual. He does this in every thread, don't know how I bothered to reply to his stupid crap.

This is rich coming from you.

[CnCGOD]

Component is analog so in theory it could be worse...

[Eomer]

^this man speaks truth

Originally Posted by Cad

Unless you have some amount of signal loss over your component cables, there is likely NO difference in the resulting signal. Whether the picture matrix is encoded in an analog fashion or a digital one makes no difference. I'm going to go ahead and speculate that none of you with component cables (unless they are defective) have any signal loss.

I have my Panasonic PT-AE2000U hooked up with component cables, about a 40' run or so. The picture quality is very good with any input, whether HTPC, PS3, or cable box. However I can see some slight "ghosting" of pixels on my desktop when running 720p or 1080p. Only if I'm up super close, but it's definitely there. And it was there with a previous projector (and different graphics card in the HTPC). So either the receiver is causing it, or the cables are. Basically the pixels themselves are fairly clear and sharp, but if you look really close at text, you can see that the pixels have a "shadow" that extends halfway to the right through the next pixel. That's really the only time it's noticeable, with moving pictures, or even non-regular stills, you can't see it, mostly with text/PC use is when you can. And that's standing 3 feet from a 106" screen. At 10+ you can't see it, at all.

One of these days I'll go HDMI when I replace my receiver, and I can confirm whether it was signal loss on the fairly long run, or just my receiver fucking things up.

Originally Posted by Lenas

Composite to HDMI, yeah that'd be true.

Component to HDMI? You are lying. It's the same signal.

No, it's not. One is digital, where it either works or it doesn't. That's HDMI. Maybe you were thinking of DVI, which is the same. Component on the other hand is analog, and you can most definitely lose picture quality through a bad signal, whether caused by a really long run, electromagnetic interference, bad cable or ends, or whatever else.

Component would be virtually identical to HDMI 98% of the time, I agree, but there are cases where HDMI would be superior.

Originally Posted by Sharmai

But if anyone believes there is a difference between component and HDMI cables I have some gold plated speaker cables that I swear will increase your audio experience by 100% for only $69.99!

There's a difference. Period. We aren't talking about Monster cables here. The signals sent through those two different cables are indeed different signals, and on is better. In reality component will be virtually the same most of the time, but there are cases where HDMI would be noticeably better.

[Cad]

Originally Posted by Eomer

I have my Panasonic PT-AE2000U hooked up with component cables, about a 40' run or so. The picture quality is very good with any input, whether HTPC, PS3, or cable box. However I can see some slight "ghosting" of pixels on my desktop when running 720p or 1080p. Only if I'm up super close, but it's definitely there. And it was there with a previous projector (and different graphics card in the HTPC). So either the receiver is causing it, or the cables are. Basically the pixels themselves are fairly clear and sharp, but if you look really close at text, you can see that the pixels have a "shadow" that extends halfway to the right through the next pixel. That's really the only time it's noticeable, with moving pictures, or even non-regular stills, you can't see it, mostly with text/PC use is when you can. And that's standing 3 feet from a 106" screen. At 10+ you can't see it, at all.

One of these days I'll go HDMI when I replace my receiver, and I can confirm whether it was signal loss on the fairly long run, or just my receiver fucking things up.

With a 40' run it's not inconceivable that you are getting some signal degradation. Try moving the thing close to the projector temporarily and using a 3-4' cable and see if the situation improves.. if it doesn't, its probably not the cable/connection. If it does, you'd probably see improvement with HDMI.

40' component runs are a little out of the ordinary though.

[Eomer]

Not really possible, or worthwhile, to bother testing it with shorter cables or whatever. Could be the cables degrading. There's a cat-5 cable that runs parallel with the component cables for most of it's runs that heads to my desktop, and that thing has been slowly shitting out over the past year it looks like, with it barely being noticeable at first but lately my network drops out constantly. The cat-5 is about 7-8 years old, while the component is more like 5.

[KilyinRZ]

They're both HD cables (component) so there is no difference. Anyone who says otherwise is probably a stupid shitsmear German faggot.

[Eomer]

Originally Posted by KilyinRZ

They're both HD cables (component) so there is no difference. Anyone who says otherwise is probably a stupid shitsmear German faggot.

Or perhaps a moron who doesn't understand the difference between digital or analog and why one can have degradation or quality issues.

[KilyinRZ]

Originally Posted by Eomer

Or perhaps a moron who doesn't understand the difference between digital or analog and why one can have degradation or quality issues.

Oh look, a fucking retard Canadian. Shouldn't you be polluting the screenshots forum with more of your useless livejournal fictional bullshit? Regardless, nobody gives a fuck you smarmy little dicksuck. But if someone did, they would probably accurately hypothesize that you haven't touched a pussy since you rolled out of your mother's cum dumpster.

Anyway, you're wrong, because like most people you just blindly parrot whatever bullshit is fed to you and try to pass it off as if you have a clue what the shit you're talking about. You don't, obviously. For example, you like to keep saying "In reality component will be virtually the same most of the time, but there are cases where HDMI would be noticeably better." Bullshit. Name one case where HDMI would be noticeably better.

DVI vs. HDMI vs. Component Video -- Which is Better?

Isn't Digital Just Better?

It is often supposed by writers on this subject that "digital is better." Digital signal transfer, it is assumed, is error-free, while analog signals are always subject to some amount of degradation and information loss. There is an element of truth to this argument, but it tends to fly in the face of real-world considerations. First, there is no reason why any perceptible degradation of an analog component video signal should occur even over rather substantial distances; the maximum runs in home theater installations do not present a challenge for analog cabling built to professional standards. Second, it is a flawed assumption to suppose that digital signal handling is always error-free. DVI and HDMI signals aren't subject to error correction; once information is lost, it's lost for good. That is not a consideration with well-made cable over short distances, but can easily become a factor at distance.

[Intrinsic]

Decent White Paper on this topic, doesn't get too technical:

http://www.audioquest.com/resource_t...t_rev_1_00.pdf

[Sharmai]

Which one is HDMI and which one is Component?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

The answer i at 41 seconds in the video

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Now ask yourself as hard as you spent looking at this picture to see which was which do you think you would be able to notice it when your watching a movie or playing a game and not trying hard to notice? That is assuming you even guessed right.

Video Games | | HDMI vs. Composite vs. Component

XBox 360 | Playstation 3 | Nintendo Wii

[Veil]

Easily 5/6 of the people i actually do side by side comparrisons between hdmi and component choose component, especially if your talking about runs over 35 feet. its just not worth it.

[Eomer]

Anyway, you're wrong, because like most people you just blindly parrot whatever bullshit is fed to you and try to pass it off as if you have a clue what the shit you're talking about. You don't, obviously. For example, you like to keep saying "In reality component will be virtually the same most of the time, but there are cases where HDMI would be noticeably better." Bullshit. Name one case where HMDI would be noticably better.

I gave a case: my own personal setup. I haven't gotten a HDMI receiver so I can't actually do any comparisons at this point, however as I explained it's an unusually long run and I suspect the ghosting is caused by signal degradation or interference on the component cables. I've seen very similar ghosting when using 10'+ VGA cables at high resolutions.

As the white papers and other links show, HDMI or any other digital signal pretty much works or it doesn't. You either get the whole picture digitally reproduced, or you get nothing. The analog signal over component however can degrade over longer runs or for a number of other reasons.

I mean honestly, your original statement WAS moronic, whether or not you personally are:

"They're both HD cables (component) so there is no difference."